Most of us have seen the grainy footage of comic Michael Richards spewing racial invectives toward black members of his audience. 

I remember him as Kramer of Seinfeld, perhaps the most wacky and endearing character of a very funny sitcom.  I like Kramer.  He would never say the vulgar things that came from the mouth of Richards.  If he were to hear such trash, he would probably fall from his chair in a faux heart attack.  Then he would grab Elaine, George, and Neumann, and organize a picket.  Or pelt the guy with rotten tomatoes.  And that’s what Richards deserves.

I caught his alleged victims on the Today Show this morning.  The two were being interviewed with their lawyer, and I’m pretty sure I saw dollar signs in their eyes.  According to their story, they were there just to have a good time.  They rented a limo and else wise invested a good bit for a nice night out on the town.  And they took their dates to watch a raunchy comedy club act, in which they began to heckle the performer in mid-act.  “You’re not funny….You’re washed up…”  In response, Richards obviously became unhinged.  He said some very unfunny things.  He needs to apologize, and probably ride off into the sunset with his millions, along with Pee Wee Herman and Mel Gibson.  But he does not need to pay these thugs a penny.

In my opinion, Richards is a victim; a victim of his own undisciplined, ugly brand of humour.  I’ve never watched such an act in its entirety, but I’m pretty sure I know the ingredients.  The performer does not have a highly prepared script.  He feeds upon and responds directly to the mood of the audience.  In his running dialog with the audience, self, and cultural/relational matters, his intention is to bring up subjects and say things which are both shocking and funny.  The comic will use edginess and sarcasm.  Putdowns will be a favourite ingredient, and even cruelty.  And, most germane to this writing, there’s almost no rules to what he can discuss.  Graphic matters of sex?  No problem.  Profanity?  The more the better.  Ethnic, gender, and racial slurs?  They’re all part of the game, as long as they are edgy, funny, and said with a wink.  And this is where Richards messed up, big-time.

In the midst of his trashy, vulgar act he was interrupted by some crude, obnoxious members of the audience.  And so his energetic, amoral presentation segued into an angry, racist tirade.  Why not?  This kind of humour allows for anything, including racial slurs.  It seems Richards’ fault lies not in what he said, but that he forgot to try to be funny.  Or maybe he was still in his off-the-cuff and brilliant mode of comedy, but no one knew it but himself.

How pathetic.  I think I prefer The Three Stooges.

A young man named John received a parrot as a gift. The parrot had a bad attitude and an even worse vocabulary. Every word out of the bird's mouth was rude, obnoxious and laced with profanity.

John tried and tried to change the bird's attitude by consistently saying only polite words, playing soft music and anything else he could think of to "clean up" the bird's vocabulary. Finally, John was fed up and he yelled at the parrot. The parrot yelled back. John shook the parrot and the parrot got angrier and even ruder.

John, in desperation, threw up his hand, grabbed the bird and put him in the freezer.

For a few minutes the parrot squawked and kicked and screamed. Then suddenly there was total quiet. Not a peep was heard for over a minute. Fearing that he'd hurt the parrot, John quickly opened the door to the freezer.

The parrot calmly stepped out onto John's outstretched arms and said "I believe I may have offended you with my rude language and actions. I'm sincerely remorseful for my inappropriate transgressions and I fully intend to do everything I can to correct my rude and unforgivable behavior."

John was stunned at the change in the bird's attitude. As he was about to ask the parrot what had made such a dramatic change in his behavior, the bird continued, "May I ask what the turkey did?"

Sometimes I get to thinking, “Life is just too tough.  This is not a good time to be thankful.”  But I have come to realize, through experience, that out of the tough times of today emerge the very reasons to be thankful tomorrow. 

My little Skylar is an example.  She is working on nine months of age now.  I have watched as her personality is emerging.  Of course she is inquisitive.  She loves our dogs, although they at best tolerate her.  And she loves her Grandpa.  Most every evening we read books together and play on the floor.  This morning as I was dashing out the door, she wanted me to hold her.  And, of course, she won that battle for my time.  It is hard for me now to fathom, but a year ago I so dreaded her emergence.  My daughter was pregnant without marriage, and I knew this child would be such a drag upon me and such a reminder to all of the whole unhappy matter.  But now I thank God, everyday, for this burst of joy within my life.  She is such a gift.  My life is so much more complete because of her.  I tear up even as I write these words.

Last night at church I asked those present to express some quick words of thanksgiving.  Clint spoke up, a middle-aged man who became a part of our congregation a few years ago.  He’s the one who led me on a mountain hike that almost crippled me for life!  Clint does not usually have much to say, but at this moment he was quite eloquent: “You folks may or may not know….I know Pastor Dave does…that I have been married 3 times.  The first two did not work out.  I tried to do it my way, and I messed up.  Then I decided to do it God’s way.  About a year ago, I married Jenny.  She has been so good to me, and I love her so much.  I want you folks to know I thank God for my wife.”  This man is quite sincere with this matter.  He adores his wife, and she does him, also.  When he made the statement I received it somewhat stoically.  Now I realize how tender was his words of thanksgiving.

We’ve all had tough times.  Most likely, they are the very building blocks upon which to be thankful, tomorrow.

I Thessalonians 5:18 (MSG)
¹⁸ thank God no matter what happens. This is the way God wants you who belong to Christ Jesus to live.

Lately, I've been thinking about my legacy. 

It's part of the middle-aged crisis, when you start to wonder if you are going to make a difference in the world.  When it is all said and done, "ashes to ashes and dust to dust", for what will I be remembered?  I've yet to write the great American novel.  Ted Haggard got the church I really wanted to pastor.  I thought I'd hike the Appalachian trail, but injured my knee after 6 miles.  So, guess I need to shoot for something more attainable.

Here it is.

This guy from Bhopal India has the current record, at 4 inches.  I'm dousing my ears with Rogaine, confident I've found my legacy.  Boy, that's a relief.

This man's success gives evidence of what most evangelical Christians would judge to be a preacher blessed of God. In religious la nguage he would be called "Spirit empowered", "anointed", and "gifted". In other words, his enormous success would be equated with God’s stamp of approval.

And what does that do for the majority of Christian ministers who are not performing or living at his level? For a moment, look past the huge church nestled in the prosperous suburbs. Look at the average little church with the not-so-flashy pastor. He probably drives an old car. She struggles to pay her bills. Admittedly, this minister does not speak with the eloquence of a mega church pastor, nor is able to convince people to follow him through the magnatism of personality or salesmanship.

It seems that even as Rev. Haggard continued to attract followers and build an every increasing congregation, he also lived a double-life. He was blatantly untrue to biblical principles. He was unfaithful to his wife. He promoted values he intentionally did not live.  And this was more than an indiscretion- it went on for several years.  But, even so, he continued to succeed in the ministry. Why?

Perhaps Rev. Haggard built his church and successful ministry and bank account with God’s help. Or, perhaps he did it with his own strength, and God had very little to do with it. Could it be that “success” and numbers do not automatically equate with God's approval? Could a preacher build a big church on the strength of charisma and manipulation, and God have nothing to do with it? Conversely, could a minister meet with little “success” and yet be doing a great work in the eyes of God?

I dare Christianity Today or Moody Monthly, or any of the evangelical magazines including those of my own denomination, to feature on its front page the antithesis of a Ted Haggard. Let’s feature a Rev. Smith. He works a second job because his small church cannot afford to pay a full-time income. His church doesn’t have a television ministry. His congregants are other than the young-and-uppers. Jerry Falwell will never preach a revival at his church. But Rev. Smith and his church help out faithfully at the local food bank. They love "little" people, who do not wear nice suits and put big checks into the offering plate. They pray, and worship, and profoundly live for Christ during the week. Probably the success-mentality of the denominational leadership would hardly take notice of such a church and minister. But I’m pretty sure this church and pastor would have their focus upon honouring Someone of a higher position.

A conservative, evangelical pastor has been exposed and has admitted, to being a hypocrite.  His message: "Do as I say, not as I do."  Now in the public arena he is the object of ridicule and shame, and by inference he has dragged along many others.  

You can read the details in the paper or any good news site.  I want to spend a couple of posts commenting upon this matter.

Why Now The Public Revelation? 

The timing and admitted purpose, of Jones’ revelation of his 3-year affair and drug use with Haggard, is to adversely affect a proposed amendment on the upcoming Colorado ballot that would ban same-sex marriage.  Haggard has been an outspoken supporter of this amendment, and by exposing him to be a hypocrite the hope would be to motivate voters to oppose the legislation because of his behaviour.